Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)WONDERFUL! This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls [View all]
This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls
6/19/15
...But can something be done? Australia, a country that in some ways shares the United States' frontier mentality and history as part of the British empire, implemented sweeping gun-control measures that have been successful for nearly two decades. So, theoretically it's possible, but "the power to do something about it" in the U.S. is limited by factors that are deeply rooted in its culture and baked into its founding document.
...What happened in Australia? Gun violence was bad. A decade of gun massacres had seen more than 100 people shot dead. The last straw was an incident at a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, when a lone gunman killed 20 people with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, achieved his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing a military-style semiautomatic rifle.
What happened next? Only 12 days after the shootings, in John Howard's first major act of leadership and by far the most popular in his first year as Prime Minister, his government announced nationwide gun law reform.
Uniform legislation agreed to by all states and territories -- the national government has no control over gun ownership or use -- specifically addressed mass shootings: Rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were banned, gun owner licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards.
How did Australia do it? In two nationwide, federally funded gun buybacks, plus large-scale voluntary surrenders and state gun amnesties both before and after Port Arthur, Australia collected and destroyed more than a million firearms, perhaps a third of the national stock, according to Professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney, who is editor of gunpolicy.org. No other nation had attempted anything on this scale. The national government also banned the importation of new automatic and semiautomatic weapons. And the buyback was paid for by a special one-off tax on all Australians.
What was the political fallout? It wasn't without cost to John Howard. Political interest groups among his conservative base raised hell, and the move met strong resistance from some in rural areas. His party's coalition partner in those areas suffered in subsequent elections. But the majority of Australians, shocked by the mass killing, backed action. And it worked...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/
6/19/15
...But can something be done? Australia, a country that in some ways shares the United States' frontier mentality and history as part of the British empire, implemented sweeping gun-control measures that have been successful for nearly two decades. So, theoretically it's possible, but "the power to do something about it" in the U.S. is limited by factors that are deeply rooted in its culture and baked into its founding document.
...What happened in Australia? Gun violence was bad. A decade of gun massacres had seen more than 100 people shot dead. The last straw was an incident at a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, when a lone gunman killed 20 people with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, achieved his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing a military-style semiautomatic rifle.
What happened next? Only 12 days after the shootings, in John Howard's first major act of leadership and by far the most popular in his first year as Prime Minister, his government announced nationwide gun law reform.
Uniform legislation agreed to by all states and territories -- the national government has no control over gun ownership or use -- specifically addressed mass shootings: Rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were banned, gun owner licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards.
How did Australia do it? In two nationwide, federally funded gun buybacks, plus large-scale voluntary surrenders and state gun amnesties both before and after Port Arthur, Australia collected and destroyed more than a million firearms, perhaps a third of the national stock, according to Professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney, who is editor of gunpolicy.org. No other nation had attempted anything on this scale. The national government also banned the importation of new automatic and semiautomatic weapons. And the buyback was paid for by a special one-off tax on all Australians.
What was the political fallout? It wasn't without cost to John Howard. Political interest groups among his conservative base raised hell, and the move met strong resistance from some in rural areas. His party's coalition partner in those areas suffered in subsequent elections. But the majority of Australians, shocked by the mass killing, backed action. And it worked...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/
^^^^ This is what we should have done after Newtown/Sandy Hook. It BLOWS MY MIND nothing changed after those sweet, precious toddlers were gunned down in a closet.
(Repost from a reply on another thread. I think its extremely relevant & should be read by as many of us Americans as possible. Please spread the word. It's possible!!!!)
PS~
What exactly happened to murder and mass killing?
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.
In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. As Howard wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times in 2013, "Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate."
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.
In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. As Howard wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times in 2013, "Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate."
83 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WONDERFUL! This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls [View all]
RiverLover
Jun 2015
OP
last I saw, communities and states manage voter registration. and the states manage
magical thyme
Jun 2015
#53
your attempt to link Bernie to the slave states that own the "states rights" meme
magical thyme
Jun 2015
#78
No 2- word soundbite accurately summarizes Bernie's thinking about gun control
magical thyme
Jun 2015
#80
oh ffs. if a 2-word soundbite doesn't do it, a single word doesn't either. it's a complex
magical thyme
Jun 2015
#82
Most of them probably make up their own minds, rather than blindly cheerleading.
Betty Karlson
Jun 2015
#20
he believed gun control could best be managed at the state level. that's not the same as state's
magical thyme
Jun 2015
#23
voter registration is handled by state & community. ACAs are state level unless
magical thyme
Jun 2015
#54
Australia didn't remove all guns. 1/3 were bought back. And restrictions were put in place.
RiverLover
Jun 2015
#9
A gay friend of mine told me that the Aussie men don't have to compensate for their size with guns.
LiberalArkie
Jun 2015
#31
K&R from another firearm owner in favor of sensible restrictions on firearms!
peacebird
Jun 2015
#33
"Because of the proliferation of guns, America is one of the most dangerous countries in the world"
EX500rider
Jun 2015
#41
"Are you saying that 14,800+ homicides do not make America one of the most dangerous of nations?"
EX500rider
Jun 2015
#76
Outstanding Posts..Thanks .big K AND R... post and link say everything there is to say....nt
Stuart G
Jun 2015
#16
This ISNT TAKING AWAY PEOPLE's GUNS. That's a RW meme that Fox has spread even to us on the left.
RiverLover
Jun 2015
#24
That is a difference, & it would be relevant if we wanted to take away their right to bear arms.
RiverLover
Jun 2015
#40
Australia's was compulsory, so you can understand why we assumed you meant compulsory.
prayin4rain
Jun 2015
#46
What really happened in Australia were Australians burying a lot of guns in their back yards.
EL34x4
Jun 2015
#34
Our president disagrees with your spin, & acc to Factcheck, it is indeed in the eye of the beholder
RiverLover
Jun 2015
#70
I don't argue with people who believe it's fine to openly carry around guns at the expense of
polly7
Jun 2015
#69